Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether or not anchoring and selective adaptation induce basically the same psychological effects. The purpose of the first experiment is to show how an audiovisual anchor modifies the perception of consonant–vowel (CV) syllables. The anchors were two purely acoustical, two purely optical, and three audiovisual CV syllables. The results were compared with those of audiovisual speech selective-adaptation experiments conducted by Roberts and Summerfield [Percept. Psychophys. 30, 309–314 (1981)] and Saldaña and Rosenblum [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 3658–3661 (1994)]. The audiovisual anchoring effects were found to be very similar to the audiovisual selective-adaptation effects, but the incompatible audiovisual anchor produced more auditory-based contrast than the purely acoustical anchor or the compatible audiovisual anchor. This difference in contrast had not been found in the previous selective-adaptation experiments. The second experiment was conducted to directly compare audiovisual anchoring and selective-adaptation effects under the same stimuli and with the same subjects. It was found that the compatible audiovisual syllable (AbVb) caused more contrast in selective adaptation than in anchoring, although the discrepant audiovisual syllable (AbVg) caused no difference between anchoring and selective adaptation. It was also found that the anchor AbVg caused more auditory-based contrast than the anchor AbVb. It is suggested that the mechanisms behind these results are different.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
June 2002
June 04 2002
Anchoring effects in audiovisual speech perception
Sumi Shigeno
Sumi Shigeno
Department of Psychology, College of Literature, Aoyama Gakuin University, 4-4-25 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8366, Japan
Search for other works by this author on:
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 2853–2861 (2002)
Article history
Received:
October 23 2000
Accepted:
March 05 2002
Citation
Sumi Shigeno; Anchoring effects in audiovisual speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 June 2002; 111 (6): 2853–2861. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1474446
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
All we know about anechoic chambers
Michael Vorländer
Day-to-day loudness assessments of indoor soundscapes: Exploring the impact of loudness indicators, person, and situation
Siegbert Versümer, Jochen Steffens, et al.
A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods
Pierre-Amaury Grumiaux, Srđan Kitić, et al.
Related Content
Infant auditory and audiovisual speech discrimination
J Acoust Soc Am (October 2016)
A reanalysis of McGurk data suggests that audiovisual fusion in speech perception is subject-dependent
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (March 2010)
Developmental factors and the non-native speaker effect in auditory-visual speech perception
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (August 2009)
Audiovisual speech perception: Moving beyond McGurk
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (December 2022)
Lexically driven selective adaptation by ambiguous auditory stimuli occurs after limited exposure to adaptors
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (May 2016)